Agnosticism vs. Atheism

[ST88]

Atheism is traditionally divided into two groups: strong and weak.

The strong-atheist actively disbelieves in a God. s/he has considered the question of whether or not there is a God or gods, and has answered the question "no".

The weak-atheist passively disbelieves in a God. s/he has heard the question of whether or not there is a God and refuses to answer because no available evidence exists in either direction. The question itself is meaningless.

In practice, agnosticism and weak-atheism are identical and strong-atheism is often translated as just atheism when the two are mentioned together. The agnostic does not trust conclusions that are not based on empirical evidence and/or logic. Thomas Huxley, who coined the modern-day term "agnostic" in 1869, has this to say.

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the principle may be expressed as: in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend the conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism. ... The application of the principle results in the denial of, or the suspension of judgment concerning, a number of propositions respecting which our contemporary ecclesiastical "gnostics" profess entire certainty.

In terms of everyday life, both agnostics and atheists behave as if there were not a God or gods. But the agnostic tends to consider the various questions posed by religion and judge them on their merits, while the atheist tends to reject religious doctrine outright as it applies to invisible deities.

There are also shades of in-betweenness, but this seems like a good place to start. Where do your values fall? And what are your views concerning "proofs" of God, Heaven, etc.?

[elwedriddsche]

Where do your values fall?

Apathetic.

[Vianne]

There are also shades of in-betweenness, but this seems like a good place to start. Where do your values fall? And what are your views concerning "proofs" of God, Heaven, etc.?

Regarding deities with definite human characteristics and behaviors, such as Yahweh or Allah, I absolutely consider myself atheist. I don't believe there is a god who displays human behaviors or who has any particular interest in human affairs -- certainly not in one that wants to micromanage individual lives.

I don't consider it impossible that there is a higher life form of sorts, although I would not consider it to be a "god" in the traditional sense of the word. I could believe that there are beings existing in a different part of the universe or a different dimension which we aren't aware of (if you want to get all Twilight Zone), but even if they had happened to play a role in our creation, I would not consider it/them omnipotent or morally superior in any way. Just different.

Technically, I guess, that does make me an official Atheist.

Regarding proofs of God or heaven, I really can't say I believe in proof of God, but I'm not totally opposed to the idea of an afterlife. I've heard stories of dying people seeing their deceased loved ones coming for them, which I'm not entirely sure I believe, but since I've never died I can't say for sure.

[elwedriddsche]

I don't consider it impossible that there is a higher life form of sorts, although I would not consider it to be a "god" in the traditional sense of the word. I could believe that there are beings existing in a different part of the universe or a different dimension which we aren't aware of (if you want to get all Twilight Zone), but even if they had happened to play a role in our creation, I would not consider it/them omnipotent or morally superior in any way. Just different.

Somebody in another forum:

"I can believe that controlling aliens exist. I could be convinced that creators exist. Nothing will convince me that the god of any religion could possibly exist."

[The Happy Humanist]

If I may be permitted to sidestep the issue just a bit, I claim that the difference between atheists and agnostics is mostly unimportant. This discussion has taken place a million times in a thousand different freethought groups, and ultimately leads nowhere, and worse, in public debates, it allows theists to gain an advantage. It allows them to claim that we are just as entangled in faith as they are, otherwise we are "merely" agnostics. It allows people like Harvey1 to pin HIS definitions of the terms on us, and then watch us try to dance. And it gets us all wrapped up in explaining the difference between "not believing in something" and "believing its negation." This ultimately gets us nowhere.

This is why I have taken to calling myself a "non-theist," which I define very simply as "not a member of the group known as 'theists'." It includes atheists and agnostics, without disclosing which one I am. I don't shrink from the term atheist, but I think non-theist lays out the battle lines just as well. "I do not believe in your God. Deal with that." This puts the onus back on the theist, and short-circuits a lot of useless side issues.

I think I've said this elsewhere; sorry if I am repeating myself, but I think it's an important point.

[elwedriddsche]

This is why I have taken to calling myself a "non-theist," which I define very simply as "not a member of the group known as 'theists'."

Same here. "Whatever it is you theists believe in, I don't"...

It's pointless to argue the distinction between different flavors of atheism and agnosticism unless the theists first provide a meaningful and coherent definition of the term deity. Why waste time to articulate an opinion about something that isn't well-defined...

It bears remembering that a label does not authoritatively define personal beliefs (or the lack thereof).

[Grumpy]

The Happy Humanist

It allows people like Harvey1 to pin HIS definitions of the terms on us, and then watch us try to dance. And it gets us all wrapped up in explaining the difference between "not believing in something" and "believing its negation." This ultimately gets us nowhere.

This is exactly why Harvey doesn't like me very much, I reject his biased definition with a better, simpler one.

Atheist=Someone who accepts NO supernatural explanations for ANYTHING.

Of course, Harvey doesn't LIKE my def., but that is more about the short circuiting of his arguement than about my use of the dictionary.

Grumpy

[Cephus]

This is exactly why Harvey doesn't like me very much, I reject his biased definition with a better, simpler one.

Harvey doesn't like any of us very much, simply because we don't fall for his appeals to authority. I've been pointing this out for a very long time that his definitions are self-serving. It doesn't take much to short-circuit what he has to say but you'll never get him to admit it.

[Grumpy]

Cephus

Harvey doesn't like any of us very much, simply because we don't fall for his appeals to authority. I've been pointing this out for a very long time that his definitions are self-serving. It doesn't take much to short-circuit what he has to say but you'll never get him to admit it.

Well his latest tactic is to claim I am rude and hurt his feelings, then to ignore my points altogether. Kind of childish and not something he would be allowed to get away with in a formal debate.

Now if I could just figure a way to get paid for every time he denigrates Atheists, I could retire. LOL

Grumpy

[Cephus]

Well his latest tactic is to claim I am rude and hurt his feelings, then to ignore my points altogether. Kind of childish and not something he would be allowed to get away with in a formal debate.

Awww, poor baby, we hurt his widdle feewings.

Now if I could just figure a way to get paid for every time he denigrates Atheists, I could retire. LOL

You'd be a very, very rich man, I'm sure.

[Grumpy]

Cephus

Now Harvey is not even bothering with his claims of hurt feelings, he just ignores me and the facts. (his idea of arguement, volume of paper on the subject, as if opinion had any place in physics)

Having happened more than once, I must assume(since no one else does this) it is a characteristic of his to bail when someone doesn't agree with him. (it must be forbidden in his philosophy to accept that others can have a different perspective/knowledge base than his own)

I would like to have a formal debate with him on these things so I could pin him down where he could not run away(for whatever manufactured reason), and through shear logical debate, shread his arguements for all to see. I actually had a dream about that, I kept trying to pin him down(rhetoricly), he kept claiming hurt feelings and wriggling away, very frustrating.

Anyway he has shown that no matter how well read he is in Philosophy, when it comes to Physics, he doesn't have a clue and is wrong more than he is right.

Grumpy

Thanks for listening to my venting, I got a formal warning for my treatment of Harvey and others, my frustration with the ignorance some show will probably get me in more hot water. If I disappear, that is why.